Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cornelis; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe
When you jump from complementariness to the being of a living universe....

To me, the complementaries refer to the knowability of the universe, not the "beingness" of the universe. It seems to me the complementaries are dualistic in that they are seemingly "mutually-opposed" to one another; but they are not the "thesis" and "antithesis" terms that sum up as a totally abstract "synthesis," and so aren't dialectical in their form or relations. And if they sum up to anything at all, it would not be to any kind of abstract being, but only a (hopefully) truthful description of reality, not reality itself.

I confess to being a little nervous that you would find me doing metaphysics here WRT the principle of complementarity, when all I think I'm doing is epistemology....

Jeepers!!! I wasn't aware that I'd invited Hegel to this party -- did you really see him? Yikes!!!!!!!! LOL!

Thanks so much for writing, cornelis!

162 posted on 06/01/2007 10:42:43 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop; cornelis; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine
[.. To me, the complementaries refer to the knowability of the universe, not the "beingness" of the universe. It seems to me the complementaries are dualistic in that they are seemingly "mutually-opposed" to one another; but they are not the "thesis" and "antithesis" terms that sum up as a totally abstract "synthesis," and so aren't dialectical in their form or relations. And if they sum up to anything at all, it would not be to any kind of abstract being, but only a (hopefully) truthful description of reality, not reality itself. ..]

Bohr with his complementary logic is a bull in many China Shops.. Thank God.. All them idols "needed" "re-arraigning" anyway.. When logic comes to a "Y" in the road going one direction is what science does well.. following BOTH directions is what is intended.. according to Bohr.. Does this mean "scientists" are generally lazy?...

163 posted on 06/01/2007 11:06:12 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; Stultis; RussP
OK, on the epistemology part, we have the observer problem opening up into three different problems.

(a) observation yields limited knowledge, such that what we know is but knowledge in part. This is obvious. If our knowledge were exhaustive, we would no longer discover anything. But it is easily forgotten. If the observer problem has a problem it is that we often take what have discovered to hold for what we haven't discovered, or don't care to know, often by applying principles in one area of thought to stop the gaps elsewhere. All the -isms suffer from this, logicism, marxism, legalism, scientism.

(b) observation cannot fix the subject of study, such that "the act of observation itself disturbs the observed object, and thus changes the total system."

(c) observation results in concepts abstracted from existence, such that further theoretical speculation yields conclusions that may not hold true for the thing in the real. Thought is a world of its own. The $100 in my mind, for all its worth, is not a $100 in my pocket. A useful theory, as Ortega puts it, must "mate happily with reality" to become knowledge.


165 posted on 06/01/2007 1:16:56 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson